In his record we find that he belives, argues for, or has ruled in favor of:

denying the US government has the ability to restrict the sale of machine guns

forcing women choosing to have an abortion to first get the consent of the biological father, even in cases of abusive relationships.

denying that the US government can create a law protecting workers' right to medical/family leave.

the strip search of a 10 year old girl who was not named in any search warrant.

doing away with the americans with disabilities act.

allowing employers to legally fire AIDS victims because of a 'fear of contagion whether reasonable or not'.

--The battle cry from the right is that they don't want Judicial activism. they don't want judges to legislate from the bench. in other words, they don't want judges to meddle with what congress has done. often they cite Scalia and Thomas as the two ideals when it comes to a 'restrained judiciary'. interestingly enough, you can look here and see how often our most recent supreme court justices become activists and strike down laws:

I will reserve comment on this guy's judicial record for a later post, but i'll tell you exactly what this nomination of Samuel Alito is about: appeasing the religious right with a political diversion. This wouldn't have been done, i don't think, if Karl Rove was indicted Friday. it is utterly a Rove move to take on a heated fight in order to galvanize the base and when you can control the fight. Rove knows he can do this with the democrats if he has his base together, and this isn't about getting 100% of the vote. its about getting a winning margin.

This also stands on another Bush (Rove) tenent: if you get some really bad press, take a remarkably tough stand on another attention gathering issue. Think how long it took to come up with the other 2 nominees, even when one cam unexpectedly. now look at the speed here. this has EVERYTHING to do with healing the riff between Bush and the right AND with getting the topic off treason in the white house. I think this is a much more dangerous gamble than it usually is/would be now because I believe only Karl Rove could manage this sort of fight and if he's out of the picture, this train could shoot off the rails quite easily. Another factor is the Press. Finally grumbling awake after 5 years, they are less likely to let the Plame matter slide off the plate. ALSO it is worth mentioning that bush, after the Miers nomination, likely felt he'd done enough to make an attempt at placing a Woman on the Court. it didn't work, thus he's free to do as he sees fit in order to get a decent nominee. the subtext is present if not certain.

Friday, October 28, 2005

After today's Indictment, the senator from West Virginia has this to say:

“It is a terrible day for all Americans when a top White House official is accused of lying and obstructing justice, made all the worse when it’s about a national security matter.

“Revealing the identity of a covert agent is the type of leak that gets people killed. Not only does it end the person’s career, and whatever assignments they may have been working on, it puts that person in grave personal danger as well as their colleagues and all the people they have had contact with over the years.

“These very serious charges go to the heart of whether administration officials misused intelligence by disclosing an undercover CIA agent. They also heighten concerns that the administration engaged in a pattern of misusing intelligence to make the case for going to war with Iraq.

“To date, Congress has completely failed to answer these critical questions. The fact is that at any time the Senate Intelligence Committee pursued a line of questioning that brought us close to the White House, our efforts were thwarted. If my Republican colleagues are not prepared to undertake a full and serious congressional investigation into the potential misuse of intelligence, then I regretfully conclude that we have no choice but to pursue an outside independent investigation. The American people deserve answers and they want the truth.”

“We must send a strong message to all the patriotic Americans in our intelligence agencies who continue to serve their country at great personal risk. Our government and our judicial system will not tolerate those who leak classified information and put the lives of others at risk.”

Americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House.--Bush, 9/15/2000

Thanks to my pal madcapadam for the reminder! as a warning of indictments to come, he adds another quote:

OK, so Scooter Libby is indicted on 5 counts, but they all relate to the cover-up, not to the actual crime of outing the CIA agent. Karl Rove goes un indicted. So, what does that mean?

I'll tell you.

The GOP spinmasters will poo poo this because it doesn't go after the leak itself but rather just 'mis-statements' made by Libby. of course, this ignores the seriousness of the matter, which the GOP saw 7 years ago when Clinton was impeached on fewer, smaller charges. i think they'll have a hard time with that argument, but they'll push it. they started last weekend. The other problem with that argument is that it may be hard to keep it up when this thing is far from over.

The grand jury is extended and thus Karl Rove isn't out of the crosshairs yet. I would wager that any indictments that deal with the outing of the agent will come later as that case is developed. over the last few weeks Fitzgerald has widened the prosecution's search into new areas and it appears to be a ways from being over. If there are indictments on these matters, which seems pretty simple considering all we know that Libby has done, i believe they will all come at once. Libby's indictment on the outing will come at the same time as the others.

So why did they get him on this stuff now? why not get him on all the charges later? The answer to that is that Fitzgerald is sending a message. he wants others that may be under the mircosope to know that they better play it straight with him or they'll be going to jail too.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

ANOTHER indictment just came up, but not related to the Bush administration giving out the names of our spies. this time its money laundering with teh Bush '04 campaign. I'd say i was "outraged" but that implies i'd be shocked in some way. i'm not.

The U.S. Attorney’s office has indicted Tom Noe, the former Maumee coin dealer suspected of laundering money into President Bush’s reelection campaign, Mr. Noe’s attorney told The Blade today.

Jon Richardson said he was called this afternoon and informed of the indictment. The details of the indictment are being withheld until a press conference at 4:30 p.m.

She's gone, and who can blame her? The very people that are her party's base have attacked her and humiliated her in a way I have not seen. So angry and venal they were that this choice would not and could not even be heard. The VERY thing the GOP feared and pre-emptively argued against in the John Roberts Nomination is the very thing they did to their own. All the talk of due deference to the President's appointee, the idea that they should at LEAST have an up or down vote, you see...that wasn't real. that was in case the Democrats didn't like the nominee. all such principles went out the window.

this is really the first time the part has turned, not on itself, but on the president. He is most certainly becoming a lame duck. he isn't yet, because i'm convinced it will become worse. I am convinced that bush had no intention of withdrawing her nomination, but rather that it was she who in fact withdrew herself (in reality). Who would withstand such withering public scorn? why would you? there was no appeasing her detractors and they were ruthless...more ruthless than any Democrat.

I'm not happy with this. I wanted Miers. I am certain, from my vantage point, that whomever we get will be much worse.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

George W. Bush wants to amend our Constitution to make it illegal for gays to marry. But evidently, he has no problem with terrorists getting married. America can't afford a president who is soft on terrorist marriage. Because unlike gays, terrorists can breed.

Sen. Frist (R, TN) had a blind trust to hold some of his investments. the idea being that if he doesn't know what is in them, he can't have a conflict of interest between his financial portfolio and his work as a senator that might affect the investments.

The problem comes when Frist acts in ways that benefits his company in that 'blind trust'. well, that's the start of the problem. the rest comes in when, in 2003, Sen. Frist wastold (in writing) that a significant amount of (his family healthcare company) HCA, Inc., stock had been added to his blind trust. As you can imagine, Blind trusts do NOT come with such seeing eye dogs. Two weeks after that event, he goes on record to state that he did not believe that he owned any stock in HCA. "I have no control," said Frist.

When George W. Bush was asked this morning about a report that the White House is thinking through contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination, he responded with what we thought was a non sequitur: Rather than confirming or denying the report, the president said that he will refuse to release documents reflecting the advice Miers has given him as a member of his White House staff.

and then you scratch your head and say "wha?". I think this means that there is an idea floating around about how to get Miers out of the picture. the plan? proclaim that these documents will NOT be released, as they are priviledged, then have the Senate demand that they cannot POSSIBLY approve said attorney without the documents. she THEN steps down because she cannot give them what they want.

GOOD GOD. is there simply no honor in the white house? have they simply decided our international reputation is a roll of toilet paper? the Bush administration, lead by Dick Cheney, is now proposing that the CIA be exempted from a bar on torture on prisoners held by the US. Did 9/11 mean that they felt this nation no longer had to bother with its own dignity?

Monday, October 24, 2005

The geeks have taken over the asylum...i mean, the chicken strip place:

MONDAY EVENTS...The Star Trek Fan Association meets at 6:30 p.m. at the Chick-Fil-A on Lakeland Drive. The group is a fellowship with all things science fiction and does community service projects throughout the year.

There has been a bit of pre-damage control going on in anticipation of High Level White House indictments related to treason and an extended cover up concerning the March to war. Sen. Kay Baily Hutchinson (R, TX) said that she hoped:

that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

Now, this is a bit curious, since in Feb. 17, 1999 the Congressional Record shows her saying:

I do not hold the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense, that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation and to the American people and gross abuse of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader.

Seems Anne Rice has made a re-newed connection with her Christian faith and is writing a new novel based on the gspels of the New Testament. Her knack for the period piece/novel might actually make it worth reading.

Well, the send up of Bush's faked teleconference/stunt with the troops was the best part.

Rachel Dratch, playing a solider in a video conf. with Bush: "The Iraqi people are so full of freedom they could burst. Sometimes an Iraqi will be so full of democracy, they'll walk into a crowded area and explode ... with democracy" ("SNL").

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Its almost like there's a few people out there feeling free to talk now that the beans are being spilled. the next 3 years will be rough for this President.

WASHINGTON - U.S. foreign policy is being made in secret by a small 'cabal' of powerful people like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a former top Bush administration official charged yesterday.

Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell until they left office in January, unleashed possibly the broadest attack on the Bush administration from one of its own since former Counter Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke last year.

Wilkerson said 'we have courted disaster in Iraq, North Korea and Iran' and said that if there is another attack in the U.S. such as a nuclear explosion in a U.S. city 'you are going to see the ineptitude of this government.'

"What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.” -- Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff until January 2005, quote from Wednesday, October, 19th.

This, i believe, is why cheney NEVER EVER gave up one bit of ground on the WMD issue when the rest of the world knew it was bogus. he'd NEVER let it go, and maybe now we know why. he never gave a damn if they had WMD because that was just the excuse to get him the war he wanted. he KNEW the facts were made up, because it was his office that conentrated on cherrypicking the research to fix the story. it was just a matter of if you were willing to go along or not.

speaking of not going along, seems ANOTHER person in Cheney's office has flipped and will testify for the prosecution.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

This was sent by a pal and it is a good article about just what the hell all this PLAME/ROVE/SCOOTER/Cheney "Plame-gate", indictment, prosecution business is all about. it is worth a read because it just lays out what is at stake here, regardless of your political leanings.

I made a post a few days ago outlining a few of the people i've been thinking may be in trouble. Others have since asked me (here and privately) who i've heard will be facing indictments. below is something i cought earlier in the week but just now found in print (with a very roundabout link--sorry). Anyway, the scuttlebutt goes:

(by Larry C. Johnson)

Had lunch today with a person who has a direct tie to one of the folks facing indictment in the Plame affair. There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment . These include Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and Mary Matalin (there are others of course). Hadley has told friends he expects to be indicted. No wonder folks are nervous at the White House.

NOTE that there is a possibility of indictments of 22 people. TWENTY TWO!! if 22 bush administration people are indicted, this presidency will implode. i don't see THAT much happening, but that's just because i don't believe in hubris THAT much.

The New York Daily News reports that Bush KNEW that Rove leaked the name of a CIA agent to the press then denied it for years. he even went on the record saying he'd fire anyone he knew to have given away the agent's name. I guess that was ANOTHER lie. So now we have someone commiting treason and a President helping to cover it up. This clearly has to be the worst president of all time (Sorry Pres. Harding, you just lost the belt). I am very curious where this puts things. Below is an excerpt from the NY Daily News:

An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

Bush fell below 50% approval in MS last week....and that's a GOOD state for him! he's above 50% in 6 states: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. see it all here or catch the highlights below:

In just the past 30 days, Bush's Net Job Approval has fallen by 10 points or more in:

Texas From Plus 7 to Minus 12, a 19-point dropSouth Carolina From Minus 4 to Minus 18, a 14-point dropMississippi From Plus 12 to Zero, a 12-point dropTennessee From Minus 5 to Minus 17, a 12-point dropMichigan From Minus 21 to Minus 32, a 12-point dropIllinois From Minus 23 to Minus 34, an 11-point dropNorth Carolina From Minus 5 to Minus 15, a 10-point drop

In key Swing States, Bush's support is eroding among Regular Church Goers. See for example the trendlines in:

It seems they hit a guy that would be too low on the totem pole for the Conservative spin machine to bother with saving. what's a brother to do? Flip.

The super serious scuttlebutt is that Vice President Cheney’s deputy chief of staff, John Hannah was sent a letter tagging him for indictment and decided to FLIP on the VP's office and give up the goods. I've heard several names batted around for indictment-ville including: Mary Matlin (sorry James), Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and even DICK Cheney. this kettle is about to blow!

Hotline put together this fine little list of people that have been asked to speak in this investigation. Take a look at these names:

Here's a list of folks who have either testified or have been interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald (or by FBI agents) in connection with the Plame probe. Please send us omissions and additions and expansions. Anonymity is guaranteed. To repeat: the list below is of those who have been interviewed by officials in connection with the case. Inclusion does not necessarily indicate that the listed person has testified under oath.

Bush: Early Summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)

Cheney: Early summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)

Ex-Dep. Sec/State Richard Armitage

WH Assist. To. Pres. Dan Bartlett

Ex-WH press aide Claire Buchan: Feb. 6, 2004

WH COS Andy Card

Time's Matt Cooper: July 13, 2005

Ex-WH press. sec. Ari Fleischer (at least twice)

A.G. Alberto Gonzales: June 18, 2004

Ex-DOS BIR dir. Carl Ford

NSA Stephen Hadley

Ex-CIA comm. dir. Bill Harlow

Assis. Sec. of Commerce/Ex-Rove assist. Izzy Hernandez

Assist. Sec. of State Karen Hughes

Ex-Sec/State counterproliferation offic. Bob Joseph

Washington Post's Glenn Kessler

Ex junior WH press aide Adam Levine: Feb. 6, 2004

Cheney CoS Irving L. "Scooter" Libby (twice)

Ex-Cheney adviser Mary Matalin: Late January, 2004

Current WH Press Sec. Scott McClellan: Feb, 6, 2004

Ex-CIA dep. dir. John McLaughlin

Cheney aide Cathie Martin

New York Times ' Judy Miller (twice)

CIA comm. dir. Jennifer Millerwise (did not go before grand jury)

Columnist Bob Novak

Ex-Sec/State Colin Powell: July 16, 2004

Ex-Abramoff assist./Rove assist. Susan Ralston

WH DCoS Karl Rove (4 times)

NBC News' Tim Russert

Stranger who stopped Novak in the street

Ex-CIA dir. George Tenet

Sen. Adviser to Sec/State Jim Wilkinson (has said he did not testify)

Ex-Amb. Joseph Wilson

On the witness list at one point but never called to tesify:

New York Times' Nick Kristoff

"Cooperated" with Fitzgerald:

Sec/State Condoleezza Rice

Others believed to have testified:

John Hannah, David Wurmser (senior members of Cheney's staff) (Hotline sources)

Other journalists mentioned in press acounts as having initially sparked Fitzgerald's interest:

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Now there have been reports swirling around that this investigation involving the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame is going deep into the VP's office. Many have speculated that Dick Cheney may have actually been personally involved since:

1. He's been the one fighting hardest to spin the WMD story despite all evidence to the contrary (even up to today).

2. He was personally involved in the various PR planning regarding the way the White House sells the WMD story (along with Karl Rove and Scooter Libby which most of us think will soon be indicted, and I personally think that they commited treason...but since i'm not a federal prosecutor, I'll let that lie).

I've been trying to downplay the idea that this will go up to the VP because I think that would be me letting my distaste for Cheney clould my vision. THIS, however seems to imply the plot is thickening:

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

'It's certainly an interesting but I still think highly doubtful scenario,' said a Bush insider. 'And if that should happen,' added the official, 'there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP.'

I think if Cheney steps down, they will TRY to pass it off on his health (which isn't so good), but this sort of move would send this Presidency into a tailspin.

The video game manufacturer is expected to unveil its plan for free wireless Internet access at McDonald's restaurants for its handheld game system, according to a report published Tuesday in The New York Times.

The new service would allow Nintendo DS owners to play other gamers online at the fast-food chain.

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - A nine-year-old boy has succeeded where hardened criminals failed by successfully swimming across the freezing and shark-infested waters between San Francisco's Alcatraz prison and the shore.

There has been MUCH talk about the 2006 mid-term elections. Since The GOP seems to be in a weekly freefall, there has been much speculation over the ability of the Democrats to win back the House of Representatives. There has also been a great bit of comparison to the 1994 election cycle where the House and Senate switched to Republican leadership and has so remained ever since. Can the Dems win it all back?

Don't Believe it!

There are 2 key elements missing so far, and there is no reason these things will likely appear on the horizon anytime soon.

The Democrats have no unified plan. Ideas help and the dems have a few. the problem is that they are scattered and there is no successful effort being made to unify a group of Democratic Ideas for the candidates, across the board, to use. You cannot simply be against everything the GOP wants and call that a plan. If everything is going VERY poorly, as it is, you can get some mileage out of it, but there has to be a basic alternative plan or you will not win over enough people. We have to move beyond "THIS is a bad idea" as a campaign theory. It can be used, but to little effect without being paired with the new, better Democratic idea (whatever that is).

The maps are drawn against Democrats. Since the 2000 Census, the boundry lines for the US Congressional seats have been drawn in a way that is favorable to the Republicans. The GOP, most notably in Texas, has redrawn the districts to water down traditional Democratic support. Basically, after the realignment of the 1990s, the districts were re-drawn to favor the incumbents (GOP) and water down the Democratic presence in the various district. The effect here is that even with a dip in popularity, the Dems have their base in each district so watered down that they will have trouble putting together a coalition.

The GOP decided to make some districts a "SUPER" Democrat district that they'll never lose, but at the expense of other districts that might be in play. The worst part is that, in some areas, the Democrats inadvertantly helped the GOP do this (oh my, the stories I could tell)! Think about this country: evenly divided.

This is because of a coordinated effort to make the GOP the party in power for generations. This is also the fact that seems to be ignored or omitted in every article i've read about the upcoming elections. Nationally, there is no bigger obstacle than this for the Dems and no one seems to want to talk about it.

The New York Daily News is set to report in Tuesday editions that a well-placed source interviewed by the newspaper believes a senior White House official has flipped and may be helping the prosecutor in the case, RAW STORY has learned.

The Daily News will reveal that a top source believes that based on the questioning of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his other contacts with the investigation, someone in the White House has turned.

All eyes are on Dick Cheney, the News says, as the investigation wraps up.

It seems that the White House has officially given the greenlight to overturning Roe v. Wade to allow the criminalization of abortion. from Salon:

[John]Fund bases his report on notes taken by someone who participated in the call. According to the notes, somebody asked Miers' friends, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" Kinkeade's answer: "Absolutely." Hecht chimed in: "I agree with that. I concur." Fund tried to get confirmation from Kinkeade and Hecht. Kinkeade declined to talk with him, and Hecht -- who has had what he calls a "semi-romantic" relationship with Miers -- told Fund that he'd responded to the question by saying, "I don't know.

Recently there's been a furvor over remarks made by leading evangelical Dr. James Dobson where he claimed to be ok with the nomination after a conversation with Karl Rove. MANY Senators (GOP Senators in particular) did not like the idea that the white house is sharing info on this lady but would not share with them. This not withstanding, it also looks bad for the White House to be making back room assurances about pre-decided court cases when they claim that such things are 'inappropriate'. Dobson tried to clean up his story by saying Rove never told him anything about Miers' view on abortion, and that may be technically true. as you can see above, Rove set up the talk where OTHER people could give him that info for him while they were all on the conference call. Dobson's sleight of hand isn't exactly the full truth now is it?

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Can they quit tying 9/11 and Iraq anytime soon? please? I know bush's numbers are in the toilet, but I'm tired of these jerks seeing the mass murder of thousands as their shining PR moment. Condi on Meet the Press today:

The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda…or we could take a bolder approach.

So, does 'bolder' mean attack the country that didn't attack us and letiong the mastermind of mass killings in new york continue to breathe free. my that's bold. I'm sick of this administration using coffins as a footstool to allow it to stand tall.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Reporting on a flood, this newsperson is broadcasting live from a canoe to emphasize the devistation. only one problem: the 2 guys that walk inbetween her and the camera showing the water to be only about 10 inches deep. WATCH!

Oh, it gets even worse. Not only was the president's little talk to the troops 'News Event' completely staged and scripted (and caught), but see that Woman the Left? the Soldier?

Not so fast!

It seems The Village Voice is running a story that reveals this womans as Corine Lombardo. she's actually not even a soldier fighting in Iraq. she's a public affairs officer who works as a PR spokesperson to the media for the military. Even their military folks are just PR.

Is that what this war is about? made up PR stunts from the military PR team passed off as a give and take between the grunts and the President? Does that qualify for leadership now? turn a blind eye to any real military developments in the region over the last 2 years and just have the PR people make up a story to ask you about on national TV. I'm tired of our soldiers being sent to war so that bush can play soldier. These are peoples lives and this man treats them like they're in his personal sandbox.

Don't get me wrong, Bush has about 3 different earnest faces he puts on when he talks about our troops. he talks gravely about the burden we bear in bringing freedom to the region. the problem is that the earnest look and recycled sentence or two about his faith and respect in the military are just about all he DOES have for our troops. He certainly hasn't given them an attainable goal. he hasn't given them the gear they need for their job, and he's asking them to do this (much bigger) job with about 1/2 the troops we had in the 1991 gulf war.

These men and women have agreed to go, fight, and die if asked. The least he could do is treat them like human beings and not like playthings he sends to fight when he feels like playing war. The problem with bush is that he's spent 2 years telling us how much he loves our troops without doing one damn thing to actually provide them support. He knows he has the enduring love of many of these men and women and he just steps on that by using them for PR when his polls are down. They are nothing more than a tool for the president to try and make himself look good. the problem is that he's sent thousands to die for an idea that had never actually become a plan with a goal and an end.

I'm so tired of a president more concern with how things look than how they work. I'm no peace-nik and i'm beginning to think it's time to bring the troops home. I don't shy away from war and I might not have been against this one...if it weren't fought in the dumbest fucking way anyone could dream up. If this man and this leadership are incapable of fighting this war properly and successfully, we have no business fighting it at all.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

In case you missed it today, EVERYONE has been buzzing about the staged 'conversation' between bush and the troops today. carried live as if he was actually having a public meeting with the troops, NPR has the digs on the REHERSAL of this live conversation. I'm glad our president uses men and women risking their lives as his own PR tool. god knows he has nothing better to do in leading this country.

This guy governs by living in a bubble of yes-men.

Note to Bush: if you want your poll numbers to go up, DO YOUR DAMN JOB! quit putting your army hat on and making the staff refer to you as a 'war president'. pretend time is over. people are dying, and you're doing THIS?

Bush isn't really building a bridge to the black community, is he? what's his approval rating among black folks?

2%

TWO PERCENT!?!

Now, no one expects bush to do well among the black community, but 2 percent is unheard of. Something is wholly and fundamentally wrong with the leadership of this country when 98% of a race says you aren't doing a good job.

last year, the GOP admitted they have done a poor job in representing or appealing to the black community. they even admitted that it was, in part, the fault of their own actions. they've said they wanted to do better and got more voters than ever before from the black community. The problem came in delivering the goods. given the chance with Katrina, they didn't. this sort of thing will take years to overcome.

McCarthy: You know the [American] Civil Liberties Union has been listed as "a front for, and doing the work of," the Communist Party?

O'Reilly: There is no question the ACLU and the judges who side with them are terror allies. (July 25, 2005)

McCarthy: Now, you wrote a book in 1932. I'm going to ask you again: At the time you wrote this book, did you feel that professors should be given the right to teach sophomores that marriage -- and I quote -- 'should be cast out of our civilization as antiquated and stupid religious phenomena?' Was that your feeling at that time?

O'Reilly: You can understand how people like me and maybe a lot of people watching think you are a loony lefty when your book, 'Fanatics & Fools' ... is endorsed by the following: Molly Ivins; Bill Maher, Bill Moyers; and Larry David. Why don't you get Che Guevara on that, oh, he's dead. How about Fidel Castro? Come on, they are the far left fringe. That's who you're hanging with ... (April 20, 2004)

This morning Bush did a telebriefing (that word just made up specifically for today's event--INNOVATION!) with soldiers in Tikrit. It was Aired on CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC. I think they need to do a better job of staging these things, at least so i don't see the strings and puppeteers in-frame. I mean COME ON! Isn't it borderline miraculous that (via tv-teleconference screen) bush just happens to recognize a soldier he just happened tohave met in NYC once before? or how about the guy that just stood up to spontaneously just say "I really like you Mr. President." Good god! what is this? an appearance of the newest heartthrob on the ed sullivan show? I was just waiting for the next guy to stand up and quickly say "BILLY THINKS YOUR CUTE!!" and dart back into his seat wide eyed and giggling. Oh well, study hall is over. back to class everybody.

I have to be honest. When I began to hear about Harriet Miers's religion, I didn't give it a second thought. I KNEW they were trying to appeal to the Evangelical base. I KNEW the president would pick a Christian. It can be hard to be involved in politics if you aren't a Christian. This is something that I always thought was unfortunate, but I never really had to dwell on the issue. Let's face it, I'm a white, male, heterosexual, Christian. People rarely complain about any of those things, and as for the ones that do...they're generally powerless to do anything about those feelings.

There have been a couple of things (i won't say articles) written that have me thinking about some of these requirements. We tend to expect our politicians to be Christians. whether we like it or not, we understand that there'd be upheaval in most quarters if the Politician wasn't Christian. Now, we as Americans, like to believe in religious liberty and we operate under the fiction that a non-christian would be OK for office if they get the votes, but that's just a mild front. we know there's not much of a chance in hell that will happen, but hey! if you can do it, knock yourself out. What we tend NOT to like (at least we're usually vocal about it) is someone being TOLD they can't have a job because of their religion. Now we may be OK with the idea of that being the result, but it messes with our facade of fairplay if the rules SAY you have no chance. That just seems un-American, right?

Meet George W. Bush. He wants to appoint a conservative judge. That's fine. He has appointed Harriet Miers and the conservative wing of his party have lost their minds. Her main attributes (to hear the President tell it) seem to be that Bush knows her well and that she's a good christian woman. That last point has been stressed over and over now, not as a descriptive, but rather as REASON she got the job. She's the right KIND of Christian. I've grown numb to this sort of thing. It has been implied for so long for so many politicians, that it didn't even catch my eye when it was announced publicly: Non-Christans Need Not Apply. Part of the consideration for this job as impartial judge is to not only be a Christian, but the right sort of Christian. Any other person openly using those sorts of rules would be violating our civil rights laws. A manager at Burger King cannot say "Christians only" when hiring, but for the President, we've been told that it's the actual reason we've got this nomination. Perhaps it is telling when you no longer even have to bother with the niceties of the pretense of liberty and equality.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

And he seemed not to like it when they wouldn't let him prattle on with 2 year old platitudes (instead of answers to questions). It also seems he REALLY got his feelings hurt when he got cut off by the interviewer who wouldn't take BS answers.

I had no idea that "Texans" came so easily hurt these days. i hope no one else makes him feel bad again. its awfully, awfully sad.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Penn Station spent the day on edge after a terror threat, the Washington Monument was emptied after a bomb threat, and my pal from DC says they're emptying the capitol right now, i presume bc of some threat.

Long article but worth the read. a great insight on the minds bringing us the war in Iraq as written by a former supporter.

As plans for war raced ahead, a secret new unit was being set up in the Pentagon, overseen by Douglas Feith and his deputy, William Luti, who was such a maniacal hawk that his colleagues called him "Uber-Luti." (At a staff meeting, Luti once called retired Gen. Anthony Zinni a traitor for questioning the Iraq war.) The secret unit was called the Office of Special Plans, and it was charged with planning for Iraq. Packer's account of this office is chilling. Its main purpose was to cook up intelligence to justify the war, which was then "stovepiped" directly to Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby (who has now been linked to the Valerie Plame scandal). Its cryptic name as well as its opposition to the traditional intelligence agencies, which had failed to deliver the goods on Saddam, reflected the views of its director, Abram Shulsky, a former Perle aide, housemate of Wolfowitz's at Cornell, and student of the Chicago classics professor Leo Strauss. Strauss, around whom a virtual cult had gathered, had famously discussed esoteric and hidden meanings in great works, and Shulsky wrapped himself in the lofty mantle of his former professor to justify the secret and "innovative" approach of the OSP.

In fact, besides feeding bogus intelligence from Iraqi exile sources into the rapacious craw of the White House, the OSP was nothing but a spin machine to prepare the way to war: No actual "planning" was done. According to Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, the "crafting and approval of the exact words to use when discussing Iraq, WMD, and terrorism were, for most of us, the only known functions of OSP and Mr. Shulsky." (Kwiatkowski later recalled a bit of advice she got from a high-level civil servant: "If I wanted to be successful here," she wrote, "I'd better remember not to say anything positive about the Palestinians.")